Against this background, if we legalize such a stipulation in relation to one group, it will encourage the organizers of many other groups to enter into all the contractual systems that will be formulated. And to the extent that they are implemented as they say, this is liable to lead to fatal harm to the interests of the members of the groups, wherever they may be.
- On the other hand, it should be remembered that the group's organizers are the ones who bear the main burden of establishing it, locating business opportunities, and realizing them. They should be encouraged to act in all of these, and hence they should be allowed to protect their investments. A situation in which they can be easily replaced, and the connection between them and the groups they organize may protect the interests of the group members, but it has led to many organizers not wanting to embark on a journey at all, and to establish groups, since their investments may go down the drain, and not always rightly.
And the present case illustrates this clearly. The idea of establishing Group 102 is intended to raise the rights that will be allocated to this lot along with Lot 104. His birth is therefore in group 104. And it is difficult to beat an effort to form an entire group, for this purpose, just to allow the members of Group 102 to remove the organizer from the agenda and proceed independently without him.
- On the face of it, and without setting any rivets, it is legitimate to burden the replacement of the organizer, after he has invested everything necessary to consolidate the group and formulate the business opportunity that underlies its activity. Still, it is doubtful whether this consideration can justify the establishment of a contractual mechanism of unanimous agreement - 100 percent - for replacement, when it comes to dozens of group members. It can be argued that such a demand, which means that the members of the group are bound to its organizer, contradicts public policy, and should be disqualified.
- However, in our case, there is no room to decide the matter. This issue is not sufficiently whitewashed by the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, and we will recall that the basis of the claim is monetary relief, and the plaintiffs must show that the defendants' conduct on this issue justifies compensation.
They didn't do that.